About your Search

20130115
20130123
Search Results 0 to 4 of about 5
to a firearm for self-defense. similarly, it applies to a restriction on high-capacity magazines, which we treat separately than an assault weapons ban. what a ban on the sale of high- capacity magazines, capable of holding more than 10 rounds of ammunition be unconstitutional? i think it is a similar analysis. common use? , used for self-defense? it upheld the restriction on the sale of high-capacity magazines as well. yes, they are probably in common use. yes, there are millions and millions of these high-capacity magazines out there -- however, the court says self-defense typically does not require more than 10 rounds of ammunition. and there remains issues of fit, whether it substantially ferber's -- recent data suggest that the 1994 ban did have an impact, that the rate at which high- capacity magazines where recovered from crime and guns appears to have dropped considerably in the wake of that law and then increase to amass the glee -- dramatically after the law was expired. in my book "gunfight" i tried to show there is a long history and tradition of gun control in america. it is n
weapons, we think it is likely the supreme court will uphold these provisions. in defense of those who do seem confused about the nature of our second amendment rights, the supreme court has not done a great job of clarifying what is the scope of our second amendment rights. as most of you know, in 2008, the supreme court held that the second amendment protects the right of individuals to have guns for personal protection. two years after that case, it struck down a lot in washington, d.c., that banned handguns and made it unlawful for you to use a shotgun or rifle for self-defense. two years after that the supreme court held the second amendment similarly applied to state and local governments and effectively declared chicago's ban on handguns unconstitutional. advocates make it clear exactly how the courts should go about interpreting the second amendment and applying it to other gun-control laws. it is one thing to identify a right in the constitution, but where the rubber hits the road is figuring out which laws are constitutional and which laws are unconstitutional, so they asked the
for the national defense wisely. i think the public knows by now we are spending $100 billion in afghanistan this year. $100 billion. we need to bring it back home. we need to end that war. thankfully, the president has set us off on a course where we will end american offensive action and move to supporting the afghan government in the spring of this year. mr. president, we are thankful you put that policy. let's bring the rest of it home. $100 billion. we need that money here. we need national defense, but we need to be wise how we spend that money. the fifth thing is this, we need to change. we need to be willing to change. thank you for bringing up the first three of those. but this is how we invest in the future, and these are policies that we need to put forward. they are the critical foundation for economic and social growth. mr. tonko: you speak to the innovation and you speak to research and that speaks to the d.n.a. our our nation which has been our pioneer spirit and is paid tribute on this floor when policies such as you just described is promoted. it is embracing that pioneer sp
the national defense authorization act because he had a connection with a freedom fighter, nelson mandela. he just got off the terrorist list in 2008. he had a relation to a terrorist. under the present administration, and you can take americans to jail without due process. the black freedom movement has always been suspicious of it. we have black prisoners in their precisely because they were willing to tell the truth that was a threat and we do not talk about them. that is why the culture of fear is not just violence. people are afraid. they are afraid to lose their jobs. they are afraid to lose their status. not going to be nice tea parties, the white house. you cannot have a culture of fear and generate a movement. it is not just about justice. we have got to talk about love. martin was a titan of love. if you are not talking about love and willingness of sacrifice, we are not going nowhere. you have to be willing to hit the streets, go to jail, to die. that is what it is about. if you are not willing to do that, keep your job and drink your tea. we are in the state of emergency. [laughte
here. and that is the sequester. $1.20 trillion of across-the- board spending cuts, half in defense and half in non-defense. republicans delight it. democrats don't like it. that creates an opportunity. there's also the question of how long do you extend the debt limit. i think it would be incredibly foolish to renamed on the debt of the united states. -- to renig on the debt of united states. but how long we extend the debt limit, that is open to negotiation. and between the two of how long you extend the debt limit and how you deal with the sequestered gives you an opportunity for another attempt at a grand bargain. revenue and spending restraint, especially on mandatory programs to get america back on track. we can do it. we have done much tougher things before. this is an next opportunity to put america in a premium position in the world. if we solve this problem, there's nothing that can stop the united states from continuing to be the most important and dominant country in the world. thank you. [applause] >> thank you very much. we will open it up to questions. i would like to
Search Results 0 to 4 of about 5